Kasmic argues that 17 year olds are paying taxes without representation, even though the government is supposed to be "for the people." 17 year olds are tried as adults and can serve in the military but not recognized as legal adults does not seem sensical according to kasmic.

Con says 17 year olds would be uninformed voters, and teens are easily subject to propaganda. To combat teens not being represented in government as Pro says, Con says they can create PACs and other groups to get involved in politics without voting. This allows them to further their case or agenda but not vote on things they don't know about. He says all voters should be competent.

Pro argued that 17 year olds are not necessarily uninformed, but Con said all voters should be competent so that means not just 17 year olds according to Con. Pro is right that teens might not be more susceptible to propaganda (though they probably are) but he doesn't do much to rebut Con's counterplan. He says it sounds like Con is trying to be oppressive when Con explained why uninformed voters are oppressive.Yet Con did not respond to Pro's arguments on the purpose of government or possible tyranny against teens.

Con did prove that 17 year olds are not informed, but did not improve they were less informed than 18 year olds. But Con explained that he doesn't want 18 year olds to automatically be given the right to vote either. This begs the question should informed 17 year olds be able to vote??? but Pro did not mention that argument. On tyranny Con should have argued that 16 year olds are subject to the tyranny Pro talks about but he did not mention that argument either......

On what was provided, I can say that Pro has the burden and explains why 17 year olds should vote. He simply argues "liberty" but Con explains why that is not preferable under a utilitarian standard that seeks to benefit society. Even though Pro showed a negligible difference between 17 and 18 year olds, he didn't prove 17 year olds automatically deserve the right to vote or should be presumed competent enough to vote.

Kasmic argues that 17 year olds are paying taxes without representation, even though the government is supposed to be "for the people." 17 year olds are tried as adults and can serve in the military but not recognized as legal adults does not seem sensical according to kasmic.

Con says 17 year olds would be uninformed voters, and teens are easily subject to propaganda. To combat teens not being represented in government as Pro says, Con says they can create PACs and other groups to get involved in politics without voting. This allows them to further their case or agenda but not vote on things they don't know about. He says all voters should be competent.

Pro argued that 17 year olds are not necessarily uninformed, but Con said all voters should be competent so that means not just 17 year olds according to Con. Pro is right that teens might not be more susceptible to propaganda (though they probably are) but he doesn't do much to rebut Con's counterplan. He says it sounds like Con is trying to be oppressive when Con explained why uninformed voters are oppressive.Yet Con did not respond to Pro's arguments on the purpose of government or possible tyranny against teens.

Con did prove that 17 year olds are not informed, but did not improve they were less informed than 18 year olds. But Con explained that he doesn't want 18 year olds to automatically be given the right to vote either. This begs the question should informed 17 year olds be able to vote??? but Pro did not mention that argument. On tyranny Con should have argued that 16 year olds are subject to the tyranny Pro talks about but he did not mention that argument either......

On what was provided, I can say that Pro has the burden and explains why 17 year olds should vote. He simply argues "liberty" but Con explains why that is not preferable under a utilitarian standard that seeks to benefit society. Even though Pro showed a negligible difference between 17 and 18 year olds, he didn't prove 17 year olds automatically deserve the right to vote or should be presumed competent enough to vote.

Pro argues for bodily integrity - the right to control one's own body. She says euthanasia is death with dignity and allows people to die on their own terms. If you take away this right, you take away people's right to control their body. She thinks it is cruel where people can't opt out of their suffering. Some people kill themselves when they can't. She also says involuntary euthanasia should rarely be used but only in serious cases. And finally she argues that keeping people alive is an unnecessary cost when they are not even self-aware.

Con says that one's body does not belong to themselves but God, though God cannot be used to determine rights legally, and Con hasn't proven to know what God would approve of.

Con also argues that the right to life is Constitutional whereas euthanasia is not. Pro pointed out that the government doesn't recognize the right to life, and SCOTUS found abortion to be valid under the Constitution whereas the right to life is not unless the person in question has some level of sentience.

Con argues thst non-sentient people are still persons deserving of the right to life. He also says we shouldn't legalize suicide just because people will do it anyway. This is a good point. Con says you cannot put a price on life but Danielle explained why the end of life cost is relevant since the patient is not self-aware and the cost might not be worth it according to them or their families, and it should be up to them.

So far Danielle won the bodily integrity argument, because Pro invokes religion but does not prove God is relevant or that he knows God's beliefs on euthanasia. Brain dead people might already be with God anyway. Pro explains why taking away the right to euthanasia is the same as exercising control over other people's bodies which is not moral or legally sound. The constitution gives us the right to privacy.

I don't think Pro does a good job pushing the point on cost, but Con does not explain why people should have to suffer. He simply says their life is valuable and has value even if the people don't value it themselves.

Pro proved that the separation of church and state makes the "Creator's" rights not relevant or able to be widely enforced. Pro explained that people can kill themselves both directly and indirectly through harmful behavior, and the courts even allow people to refuse treatment and kill themselves. This proves (if people can refuse treatment) they have bodily autonomy which wins her the debate, since Con did not deny that people have the right to refuse treatment which means he concedes the bodily integrity point. That is Pro's major contention.

Con argues for self defense. He says you cannot realistically ban guns (waste of time) and doing so would have a negative impact. He claims gun market sales would go on in the black market.

Pro argues that banning guns would prevent suicide and accidental death. He says guns correlate with crime like looting and they are used for violence. Pro says handguns are uniquely dangerous and Australia's laws on bans prove they can be effective.

Con proposes gun licenses. He says suicide is not a big deal because it does not harm others and that accidents are not a good reason to inhibit rights. He says licensing will correlate with decreasing gun violence...

Con says the US is different than Australia and this is true because he proved why it would be unrealistic and not cost effective to ban guns in the US where they are more beloved and widespread.

Pro argues that guns are not actually helpful in self defense which makes Con's self defense argument moot. He also provides alternatives to guns that can promote safety. Pro also says that while banning all guns might not be realistic, it would reduce the number of guns, so is still beneficial. Pro is right that Con offers no analysis on cost-benefits. He says the legal gun markets fuels the black gun market.

Con says that 1/4 people successfully defending themselves with guns is still a good thing. He says his counterplan is effective because of licensing, but Pro argues that licensing still allows for the guns to get in the wrong hands. Pro said "so what" and argues that even though accidents happen, self-defense is still worth it, and people can put guns in safe spaces if that's an important value to them. I agree with Con that more guns in America is problematic compared to Australia.

I believe Con beat Pro's points on accidents and suicide (arguing for individual rights to suicide) and he says people deserve the chance to protect themselves even if only 1/4 of the time. So the final decision comes to 2 arguments: the black market and if 23% of people defending themselves effectively is worth it.

bsh1 showed how legal guns correlate with the black market which Con completely dropped, so this is a moot point not in Con's favor and it seems Con has the burden. Pro challenged Con's 23% figure however and Con did not really push and explain why his figure was accurate. Pro says this number is small compared to the number of people who die by guns. Con should have said those people die by illegal guns but he didn't, so I can't give him this argument. Pro wins it and Con's burden is not fulfilled because Pro's rebuttals negated his points on self defense and the black market. As far as realism, Con did successfully prove it was not realistic to ban guns but did not push the cost or problems with doing this enough. Ic an't awaed him points for contentions he did not argue.

Con argues for self defense. He says you cannot realistically ban guns (waste of time) and doing so would have a negative impact. He claims gun market sales would go on in the black market.

Pro argues that banning guns would prevent suicide and accidental death. He says guns correlate with crime like looting and they are used for violence. Pro says handguns are uniquely dangerous and Australia's laws on bans prove they can be effective.

Con proposes gun licenses. He says suicide is not a big deal because it does not harm others and that accidents are not a good reason to inhibit rights. He says licensing will correlate with decreasing gun violence...

Con says the US is different than Australia and this is true because he proved why it would be unrealistic and not cost effective to ban guns in the US where they are more beloved and widespread.

Pro argues that guns are not actually helpful in self defense which makes Con's self defense argument moot. He also provides alternatives to guns that can promote safety. Pro also says that while banning all guns might not be realistic, it would reduce the number of guns, so is still beneficial. Pro is right that Con offers no analysis on cost-benefits. He says the legal gun markets fuels the black gun market.

Con says that 1/4 people successfully defending themselves with guns is still a good thing. He says his counterplan is effective because of licensing, but Pro argues that licensing still allows for the guns to get in the wrong hands. Pro said "so what" and argues that even though accidents happen, self-defense is still worth it, and people can put guns in safe spaces if that's an important value to them. I agree with Con that more guns in America is problematic compared to Australia.

I believe Con beat Pro's points on accidents and suicide (arguing for individual rights to suicide) and he says people deserve the chance to protect themselves even if only 1/4 of the time. So the final decision comes to 2 arguments: the black market and if 23% of people defending themselves effectively is worth it.

bsh1 showed how legal guns correlate with the black market which Con completely dropped, so this is a moot point not in Con's favor and it seems Con has the burden. Pro challenged Con's 23% figure however and Con did not really push and explain why his figure was accurate. Pro says this number is small compared to the number of people who die by guns. Con should have said those people die by illegal guns but he didn't, so I can't give him this argument. Pro wins it and Con's burden is not fulfilled because Pro's rebuttals negated his points on self defense and the black market. As far as realism, Con did successfully prove it was not realistic to ban guns but did not push the cost or problems with doing this enough. Ic an't awaed him points for contentions he did not argue.

Thanks for your vote. So what's the conclusion, or the outcome of the debate?

I think it isn't a bad idea to post all RFDs in the same thread (for purposes of organization for the Voter's Union, and to avoid cluttering), but at the same time, it makes the thread chaotic, which defeats the purpose of posting on a thread (i.e. easy replies from the debaters).

At 6/13/2016 7:54:44 PM, Wylted wrote:I like putting all my RFDs in the same thread. I may copy this, but nust put it in some unused forum area, like heLth or something

I can't take credit. Danielle reccomended it in the comment section somewhere. I wish we could link to indivdual posts, so people don't have to sort through the thread to find the debate, but then again, you could make a new one every month so there isn't that many. Any ideas on which forum I should use? I can use Technology or something next.

Pro's first point is that trans people experience discrimination and violence due to bathroom politics, so they should be able to choose their bathroom, especially because they spend a lot of money on looking like the opposite gender because this is a serious issue. She explains why it's not realistic for people to fear trans people in the bathroom, which Con never touches at all in the debate, so it's clear Pro anticipated a different argument from her opponent. Pro says you cannot realistically enforce bathroom bans on gender and that the law protects trans people's rights.

Con says business owners have the right to determine their bathroom policy and Danielle cries foul. Pro says she clarified in Round 1 that this debate was about "public bathrooms." Unfortunately this becomes a heated point of contention in the debate. Both debaters make good points. Con said he thought "public" meant any bathroom outside the home, and Pro said public meant not owned by private business but government.

In the end I would have to say Danielle is right because the HB2 bill in North Carolina that sparked this whole controversy is a law that is about public (government funded) bathrooms. However Con turned around to show that Pro cited sources of bathroom violence in business bathrooms like McDonalds. This is not relevant because the resolution could be about public (government) bathrooms while her sources were just outlining violence in bathrooms in general.

Yet Pro says she can still win according to the resolution because she only has to prove that business owners "should" let people choose their bathrooms, so that's what I focused on in judging this debate.

Moving on the first point is safety. Pro argues that trans people are attacked a lot and they are. Con says this would happen regardless of bathroom laws. Pro says bathroom laws are particularly important, because trans people are often attacked for using the wrong bathroom and they feel discriminated against the most in the bathroom when people give them a hard time. Con says this would still happen anyway and Danielle says maybe but why not let them choose? Con doesn't explain so this is something to keep in mind on Pro's behalf.

Con's number 1 argument is that business owners should be able to discriminate and protect their business even if it puts trans people at risk. This is a very strong argument, but this reminds me of the word "should." Danielle says business owners definitely have the right to discriminate, but SHOULD they. Con's argument is based on economics whereas Pro encourages safety. Con says trans people are not any less safe in a different bathroom. Pro proved violence against trans people and said more than 70% of trans people had bathroom issues. This goes back to the same point though, that even if violence would occur anyway, why not let the trans person choose? So far this is the best argument for Pro because Con's argument for business owner's economic interest (and making customers comfortable) is very strong.

On safety, Con says that the bathroom laws will not protect trans people and his last round proves this the strongest. I agree with him that Danielle fails to prove the laws will protect trans people at all, and I believe Con does answer why business owners should not HAVE to let trans people choose, especially if it doesn't protect their safety, and is only a matter of preference, because the owner's customers might have their own preferences (and be in the majority).

But I do think Con dropping the legal arguments is a big deal. Con dropped pretty much every point on legal precedent and Supreme Court rulings. This is important because it is what the whole legal issue in North Carolina is about. Also government laws trump business owner rights. A business owner might not want to hire a black person but that would be illegal thanks to Title 7. A business owner might not want to let a trans person pee wherever they want, but that might be illegal which is what Pro argued. Con did not argue back about why the law protects business owners from being allowed to discriminate against trans people. Con did not respond on Pro's arguments for the 4th amendment or equal protection clause.

Con also dropped this closing argument from Pro, "There is no legal OR medical way to verify a person's gender on the spot (intersex). Thus any attempt at stifling trans people from using any bathroom they choose is just a discriminatory hassle that is unnecessary, immoral, arguably dangerous and Unconstiutional." Con did not explain how someone would recognize or punish someone from using the wrong bathroom at all.

At 6/13/2016 7:54:44 PM, Wylted wrote:I like putting all my RFDs in the same thread. I may copy this, but nust put it in some unused forum area, like heLth or something

I can't take credit. Danielle reccomended it in the comment section somewhere. I wish we could link to indivdual posts, so people don't have to sort through the thread to find the debate, but then again, you could make a new one every month so there isn't that many. Any ideas on which forum I should use? I can use Technology or something next.

Health. It is abandoned anyway, and you can link to the post number so the size of the thread is unimportant

At 6/13/2016 7:54:44 PM, Wylted wrote:I like putting all my RFDs in the same thread. I may copy this, but nust put it in some unused forum area, like heLth or something

I can't take credit. Danielle reccomended it in the comment section somewhere. I wish we could link to indivdual posts, so people don't have to sort through the thread to find the debate, but then again, you could make a new one every month so there isn't that many. Any ideas on which forum I should use? I can use Technology or something next.

Pro's first argument is that marriage benefits couples and families. Con says that he does not deny this, and that he is saying love is the most important thing. But Danielle points out that love is not limited to heterosexuals.

Con says he does not see gay marriage making society stronger, but Pro explained that if gay people and their families benefit and become stronger, that contributes to society becoming stronger, so overall Danielle has won the first point that marriage benefits individuals and society.

Con says this debate is about the morality of homosexuality but that was not mentioned. This debate was about gay marriage. He says since this debate is about morality, all of the constitutional arguments must be dropped, which is actually a good point, but Danielle says this debate is about gay marriage which is a legal issue and not a moral issue.

Next comes a battle of the sources. Pro says con's source was biased, backed by Catholic research and Con says Pro's study was too small. He says her research comes from pro gay sources and explained how on all of them, except for the last one, the Williams Institute. The only evidence he gave for this being biased was the fact that they came to pro-gay conclusions. That does not prove they are biased, it may just validate Pro's point that gays are in fact not that different from straight people.

So Con has not proved that ALL of Pro's sources were flawed. Danielle does not really take the time to scrutinize Con's sources either, so I am awarding neither one of them sources points, and will instead address other points.

Now even if Con is right that kids do better with straight parents (which we do not know for sure) this debate is about gay marriage, not gay parenting, and Danielle pointed out multiple times that parenting is not a prerequisite for marriage. The ability or promise to parent is not required for marriage so kids are only a little bit relevant to this debate, but not entirely relevant.

Con never said that kids are required for marriage and dropped this point, so he concedes this point to Pro who says not all marriages have to do with parenting. Pro also says why kids with gay parents should not be protected, and Con drops this argument all together.

Another thing to keep in mind about the sources is that Con says all sources are biased, which means we have no reason to accept his research over Pro's. Therefore we go back to Pro's other arguments which point out that what is relevant to good parenting (money, committed partnership, large family network) is not limited to heterosexuals. Con never denies this. Pro asked what factors were limited to heterosexuals to make them better parents, and Con said biological ties but that's about it. Pro argued biological ties are not the most important factor in round 2.

Now the only moral argument Con gives against homosexuality is the bible. He brings this up in the last round after Danielle already explained that not everyone in this country is religious, in fact a quarter dont identify with religion, and other religious people are not Christian, and the law cannot promote religion. Basically Con ignored all of these points.

Con just keeps repeating that this is about the MORALITY of gay marriage and not the law, but in round 2 Danielle defined gay marriage "Gay marriage = marriage between a couple of the same sex, that is recognized by the government" which Con did not deny, so obviously government is part of this and not just moralityR03;.

R03;Con keeps saying this debate is about morality but then drops Danielle's entire last point on morality. She said that immoral people and criminals are still allowed to get married, which Con does not even respond to.

Con says, "More legal arguments. This is not relevant to the debate on morality at hand. Unless, of course, you are offering your objective standard of morality to be the US Government. If so, you've contradicted yourself on this point. 'Nonetheless, the government does not exist to legislate morality but to protect rights (Round 4, Pro).'" How is there is a contradiction? Pro says this debate is about protecting rights, not morality, and Con says it's about morality, Pro does not, so Pro is not contradicting herself, and I have no idea what Con is talking about.

In conclusion, Danielle proved that there is a reason for gay people to seek marriage (Con does not deny) and that it would benefit society and these people and their families. Con does not explain how individuals, children or society would suffer from gay marriage. The only point he brings up on kids are that kids with straight parents do better. Danielle says this is about gay marriage, not parenting even though she says her studies rival Con's and what's important is good parenting factors are not exclusive to straights. Con does not provide any things that are exclusive to straights except maybe biological ties, which ignores Danielle's point about divorce and stepparents. Con ignores most of Pro's points, such as not using religion to legislate morality because this government is based on not doing that. There is too much diversity in this country with religion and the majority of people support gay marriage, which is an appeal to authority but Con did not point that out, Con just dropped this argument. Con dropped the argument on criminals being able to marry and Con loses his own point when he admits this debate is about rights, not morality.

The most important part of this debate is bodily autonomy. Con says people have the right to die, and Pro says they do not. Con says if people do not have the right to control their own bodies, then other people have the right to dictate how we use our bodies, which could be the equivalent of forced pregnancy or rape. Pro does not explain why other people should be able to control other people's bodies. He says people do not have the right to bodily autonomy even though libertarians believe it. Con says why not? Since Pro did not explain why other people should be able to control our bodies, he loses this point.

On the suffering argument, Danielle says Ricken has not given us a reason to force people to suffer. He drops the suffering point all together. He only mentions it in the last round. "My argument has never been that people who suffer do not deserve sympathy and compassion, or that wanting to die makes them bad people, or even that an act of assisted dying cannot be a true act of mercy. My argument is whether or not the legalization of the act is a good thing." He can repeat that legalized euthanasia is not a good thing, but that doesn't change that he drops the suffering argument all together, so Danielle wins this second point as well.

Pro says euthanasia should be reserved for people at the end of their natural life and Ricken just says people should have to wait it out. But Ricken does not deny that people can opt out by refusing medical treatment, and Danielle asks why people should have to kill themselves with pain instead of without pain which Ricken drops.

Ricken argues that people are not ethical experts who can determine when life is or is not worth it, but that would mean his position is not an expert opinion either. Therefore we have to look at which debater put forth stronger argument in favor of ethical propositions.

In conclusion, Danielle says it would be more ethical to end people's suffering if they choose to end it themselves, or give trusted loved ones the power to make that decision. Why is this unethical? Ricken does not have an answer except to say that all life is important. Danielle says that sentience and self-awareness is what makes life important and distinguishes life from non-life in importance. Ricken says non-sentient people are important too but again this does not explain why. Danielle says it is ethical to let people choose for themselves because it would be unethical to give other people control over your body. Ricken does not refute this and just says bodily autonomy is an illusion. He does not explain why it is unethical. Ricken does not explain an ethical argument at all, Danielle proved it is more ethical to give people free reign over their body and not force them to suffer when they are at the end of their life or barely conscious. Con is arguing from his opinion and no facts. Con says people are not ethical experts but does not explain why he is an ethical expert.

There are 3 things Pro uses against free will: psychology, physics and philosophy. On psychology Pro explains that our brains are responsible for every single aspect of our choices and personality. Con says that our biology (brain) is not responsible for all of our behavior.

Ockam says "If I hit you over the head with a bat you will fall unconscious, therefore you don't have free will" to show the absurdity of Pro's claim, but this is not a good analogy, because falling has nothing whatsoever to do with choices. If someone falls, it is an event, not a behavior, and certainly not a choice. So Con has failed to highlight a BEHAVIOR or CHOICE that one does make that is not controlled by the brain.

Ockham says, "Another obvious problem with all of this is that we can all see that we do make free decisions that aren't determined by chemical reactions in our brains." He gives the example of reading his argument, but Danielle explained that no you absolutely cannot read an argument or process anything logically without your brain being conscious. That is true. You cannot read and your neurons need to be firing along with other brain processes to allow you to read so Con's example is flawed.

On PTSD, Ockham says the disease isn't "controlling" the brain, "it's experience overloading the brain, and overwhelming the capacity we normally have for free choice." Right here Ockham completely loses the point to Danielle on psychology because he admits that the experience overload of the brain "overwhelms" the brain's capacity to make free choice, so he basically concedes to Danielle's argument, since Danielle argued that the brain's capacity to make a choice is based on the brain's function and not our WILL. He admits this here.

Ockham repeats "Just because a brain injury can influence a person's decisions doesn't mean they don't still have free choice within a certain range, or that we don't have free will in the normal case." Yes if one's decisions are limited by injury then the injury (biological impact) determines one's choices and one needs to be in good biological brain health to make choices, so the choices are not free but determined by brain health which Danielle explains.

Then Pro says we need experience to make choices, so our experience determines our choices. Ockham has completely misrepresented Danielle's arguments while accusing her of not understanding his argument. Her argument, explained in Rounds 3 and 4, is that in order to make choices they need to be presented with the experience of BEING PRESENTED WITH THE CHOICE, not the experience associated with the potential outcomes. For instance if I ask Danielle on a date and she has to choose between Indian and Thai food, Ockham is saying her exposure to Indian and Thai food is not relevant to her ability to make a decision. Danielle is saying that her exposure to the choice (my proposal of a date) is required though so ultimately experience is relevant to every single decision and Ockham straw mans her rebuttal, which shows how his position is illogical.

Then Ockham completely drops Pro's neuroscience points which show not only studies but also other data that marketers use to control people's decisions. Con does not deny that the brain is used to influence shoppers or that research is in Pro's favor, he simply says "better research" needs to be shown but does not explain how her research is flawed. His only scrutiny was it "doesn't involve a lot of background information for choice" but Danielle explained that you don't need "background information" to make a choice and choices are often made in split second reactions which the marketing info showed. In fact Ockham used this very own argument to say experience is not necessary to make a choice so how could he say you need background information to make a choice? This is self refuting.

On physics, Ockham says Danielle must defend determinism and not just argue against free will. He says many philosophers believe in free will which is an appeal to authority but so is Danielle's science point that scientists have accepted some form of causation. Ockham drops Pro's argument on physics entirely. Pro explains that consciousness may be composed of matter and as such physics has a way to measure it which Con drops completely and basically says "let's not worry about this." Sounds like a concession to me. Danielle has argued that since the Big Bang things would have the same reaction if presented under the same circumstances, and Ockham did not respond to this at all. He drops her point on physics and says she has to prove determinism not indeterminism, yet then he ignores her arguments in support of determinism. It seems clear that Ockham is not familiar with physics and so he has chosen to ignore the arguments on physics instead of respond to them, so we have reason to accept Danielle's explanations with no rebuttal from Con.

On philosophy, Ockham claims a "total concession" by Pro because she says that she knows for sure her experiences have led to her beliefs which is what she was saying all along, so no there was no concession made. Con says, "If my opponent does not know why she believes in determinism, then she has no reason to be a determinist." No actually Danielle already responded to this in Round 2, saying "There is far too much information for human beings to be able to predict every future outcome. The individual factors that make up the entire universe are so minute, that the human brain could never fathom such intricacy to the point where we would be able to determine everything. However just because no human could fathom this intricacy, doesn't mean the quantitative data behind it does not exist."

Ockham says "Everyone's belief in anything has to do with their prior experiences on my opponent's view, so that clearly doesn't count for anything, which leaves my opponent without any justification for any of her beliefs." Wrong, Danielle said her experiences and biology justify her beliefs and everyone elses, and just because she doesn't know what specific experiences have led her to value some things over others, doesn't mean her experiences didn't shape her values. Pro asked Con to explain how values could exist without experience, which he was not able to do.

On this point Pro said that Con's argument can be used against him, because in order to value something, you need experience. She gave the examples of food and even loyalty and asked how one could make the choice to value a food or emotion without exposure to knowledge or insight on those things. It doesn't have to be direct experience but exposure. This goes back to Ockham's stawman of Pro's argument. If it is your birthday and you choose between chocolate and vanilla cake, you choose becuase it is your birthday (out of your control) and if you pick chocolate it might be because you prefer chocolaye (out of your control) or you have never tried chocolate and want to try it (your experience, out of your control). Just because you did not experience chocolate cake doesn't mean your experience or lack of experience is not relevant to your choice.

Con dropped Danielle's arguments on physics. He did not prove her logic to be self-refuting on philosophy because he straw manned her argument, and he did not prove that any single choice can be made without being determined by the brain. He lost the psychology points because Danielle showed how the brain structure dictates our capacity for choices and how our biology, culture and experience influence our personality and choices, which are things we are born into. Pro showed how any choice you make exemplifies a value and experiences or lack of experiences determine values. Also that we are at the mercy of our hormones and chemicals which I don't feel she focused on enough, but she won so handedly that it didn't even matte